The Leo Frank Case PhD Thesis Dissertation by Leonard Dinnerstein
Leonard Dinnerstein (born May 5, 1934) completed his anti-Gentile "social-history" PhD Dissertation about the Leo Frank Case in 1966 for the Political Science Department of Columbia University. The central claim of his thesis is that vast conspiracies of anti-Semitism were responsible for an innocent, Northern Jew, 29-year-old Leo Max Frank, getting convicted on August 25, 1913 for the murder of 13-year-old Mary Ann Phagan.
Are there examples of Academic Dishonesty by Leonard Dinnerstein?
Leonard Dinnerstein has promulgated two major hoaxes in his PhD dissertation thesis as a graduate student and continued to do so during his academic career as professor emeritus of Jewish studies until he retired:
1. Antigentile Hatecrime hoax
Leonard Dinnerstein's Antigentile Hate-speech Death-threat Hoax that mobs of angry people were screaming anti-Semitic death threats at the trial "Hang the Jew or we'll hang you", "crack the Jews neck", and "lynch the sheeny" through the open windows during court proceedings. See: Leo M. Frank and the American Jewish Community (1968) by Leonard Dinnerstein
. Do research on this vicious anti-Semitic hoax and determine who repeats it in their own articles, books, and other forms of media. Does the ADL perpetuate this anti-Gentile blood libel? What other authors cite this racist fraud, where and when? Post your research on the Internet for peer review and discussion.
2. The Antigentile Mary Phagan bitemark Hoax promulgated for decades and generations.
Without regard to the credibility, verifiability or reliability of the questionable sources that he often cites, Leonard Dinnerstein makes it his mission to convince us of his hypothesis and uses lying-by-omission, rumor, hoax, and fabrication, including misrepresenting the official legal records of the Leo Frank Case, to prove his racist anti-Gentile position in his PhD thesis and post-doctorate work. Dinnerstein's dissertation became the species for his 1968 book, "The Leo Frank Case", which would go through a number of editions and reprinting in its evolution beginning in 1968 with the first edition release. Do research on this vicious anti-Semitic hoax and determine who repeats it in their own articles, books, and other forms of media. Does the ADL (Anti-Defamation League) perpetuate this anti-Gentile blood libel? What other authors cite this racist fraud, where and when? Post your research on the Internet for peer review and discussion.
Let's examine hoax number two, the Mary Phagan Bitemark Hoax:
To disingenuously make his case that Leo Frank was innocent of the crime, one of the more interesting pieces of forensic evidence Dinnerstein posits is that bite marks on Mary Phagan's neck and shoulder did not match the indenture x-rays of Leo Frank's teeth. This fabricated evidence created in 1964 by Pierre van Paassen, was never presented at the 1913 trial or appeals (1913 - 1915) of Leo Frank, thus Dinnerstein's underlying suggestion is it was suppressed by the State of Georgia in an effort to railroad Leo Frank because he was Jewish.
Excerpt that discusses the case of Leo Frank and Van Paassen's discovery of X-ray photographic evidence, pages 237 and 238:
The Jewish community of Atlanta at that time seemed to live under a cloud. Several years previously one of its members, Leo Frank, had been lynched as he was being transferred from the Fulton Tower Prison in Atlanta to Milledgeville for trial on a charge of having raped and murdered a little girl in his warehouse which stood right opposite the Constitution building. Many Jewish citizens who recalled the lynching were unanimous in assuring me that Frank was innocent of the crime.
I took to reading all the evidence pro and con in the record department at the courthouse. Before long I came upon an envelope containing a sheaf of papers and a number of X-ray photographs showing teeth indentures. The murdered girl had been bitten on the left shoulder and neck before being strangled. But the X-ray photos of the teeth marks on her body did not correspond with Leo Frank’s set of teeth of which several photos were included. If those photos had been published at the time of the murder, as they should have been, the lynching would probably not have taken place.
Though, as I said, the man died several years before, it was not too late, I thought, to rehabilitate his memory and perhaps restore the good name of his family. I showed Clark Howell the evidence establishing Frank’s innocence and asked permission to run a series of articles dealing with the case and especially with the evidence just uncovered. Mr. Howell immediately concurred, but the most prominent Jewish lawyer in the city, Mr. Harry Alexander, whom I consulted with a view to have him present the evidence to the grand jury, demurred. He said Frank had not even been tried. Hence no new trial could be requested. Moreover, the Jewish community in its entirety still felt nervous about the incident. If I wrote the articles old resentments might be stirred up and, who knows, some of the unknown lynchers might recognize themselves as participants in my description of the lynching. It was better, Mr. Alexander thought, to leave sleeping lions alone. Some local rabbis were drawn into the discussion and they actually pleaded with Clark Howell to stop me from reviving interest in the Frank case as this was bound to have evil repercussions on the Jewish community.
That someone had blabbed out of school became quite evident when I received a printed warning saying: "Lay off the Frank case if you want to keep healthy." The unsigned warning was reinforced one night or, rather, early one morning when I was driving home. A large automobile drove up alongside of me and forced me into the track of a fast-moving streetcar coming from the opposite direction. My car was demolished, but I escaped without a scratch....
Unfortunately, it was not even possible to X-ray bitemarks on human flesh in 1913 or today. Leo Frank was not hanged on his way to trial, he was hanged 2 years later. Who could survive a head on collision without a scratch in 1922, when there were essentially no safety features in cars. Was it "Harry Alexander" or Henry Alexander? The whole episode alleged by Pierre van Paassen smacks of fraud from the beginning to end, but became long perpetuated hoax at its finest, thanks in part to Leonard Dinnerstein, who blandly presents this forensic evidence uncritically as more proof that Leo Frank was framed.
Leonard Dinnerstein Analysis Research Project
You are tasked with studying the primary sources of the Leo Frank case as published in the Atlanta newspapers during the late spring and entire summer of 1913, focus your attention on these daily reports between late April to August, 1913. After reading the newspaper reports from late April to August of 1913, next read the Leo Frank trial brief of evidence. Scrutinize the sources in Leonard Dinnerstein's bibliography, are you noticing any patterns of behavior? Compare what you learned from these newspaper reports and Leo Frank case legal records with what Leonard Dinnerstein claims in his dissertation. What evidence did Leonard Dinnerstein leave out of his dissertation? What evidence did Leonard Dinnerstein falsify? Are there examples of academic dishonesty in Leonard Dinnerstein's PhD dissertation thesis? Please publish the results of your research on the Internet for peer review and discussion.
Collection of Dissertations about the Leo Frank Case:
Stephen Brown, 1999
Leonard Dinnerstein, 1966
Robert Seitz Frey, 1986
Leo M. Frank and the American Jewish Community (1968) by Leonard Dinnerstein:
(The source of Leonard Dinnerstein's anti-Gentile hate speech and death threat hoax against the Jury at the Leo Frank trial, on page 110, "Beyond the main testimony, the jurors had little more on which to base their decision than hearsay, rumors, and unsubstantiated accusations. Yet most members of the public were thoroughly convinced of the defendant's guilt and made their voices heard, The intense summer heat necessitated that the courtroom windows be left open, and remarks from the crowds could be heard easily by those inside. "Crack the Jew's neck!" - "Lynch him!" - were some of the epithets emerging from the more boisterous. Threats were also made "against the jury that they would be lynched if they did not hang that 'damned sheeny.'")
The Leo Frank Case (1966) PhD Dissertation:
The Leo Frank Case Book (published 1968 and thereafter):
To Number Our Days by Pierre van Paassen (see pages 237, 238 about the Leo Frank case): http://archive.org/details/ToNumberOurDaysByPierreVanPaassen
is the origin of the Mary Phagan Bitemark Hoax that Dinnerstein promolgated in his PhD thesis and post doctorate work as fact in his Frankite activist mission to convince us that Leo Frank was innocent.
What Really Happened?
Primary sources of research and information about the Leo Frank Case include:
0. The Leo Frank Case Inside Story of Georgia's Greatest Murder Mystery 1913
- The first neutral book written about the murder of Mary Phagan and trial of Leo Frank.
1. The Murder of Little Mary Phagan by Mary Phagan Kean
(Available on www.Archive.org). Written by Mary Phagan Kean, the great grand niece of Mary Phagan. A neutral account of the events surrounding the trial and appeals of Leo Frank, including his posthumous pardon. The Murder of Little Mary Phagan is well worth reading and it is a refreshing change from the endless number of Jewish authored modern and contemporary books, disingenuously transforming the Leo Frank case into a neurotic, anti-Gentile, race obsessed tabloid controversy.
2. American State Trials, volume X (1918) by John Lawson
tends to be biased in favor of Leo Frank and his legal defense team. This case commentary review provides an *abridged* version of the Brief of Evidence, leaving out some of the important testimony and evidence when it republishes parts of the trial testimony. Be sure to read the abridged closing arguments of Luther Zeigler Rosser, Reuben Rose Arnold, Frank Arthur Hooper and Hugh Manson Dorsey. For a more complete version of the Leo M. Frank trial testimony, read the 1913 Leo Frank Case Brief of Evidence.
3. Argument of Hugh M. Dorsey in the Trial of Leo Frank
. Some but not all of the 9 hours of arguments given to the Jury at the end of the Leo Frank trial on August 22, 23, and 25, 1913. Only 18 libraries in the United States have copies of these statements in book format. This is an excellent book and required reading for students of the Leo Frank case to see how Hugh Dorsey, in sales vernacular, 'closed' the panel of 13 men (the trial jury of 12 men plus Judge Leonard Strickland Roan).
4. Leo M. Frank, Plaintiff in Error, vs. State of Georgia, Defendant in Error. In Error from Fulton Superior Court at the July Term 1913, Brief of Evidence.
Only three original copies from 1913 and 1914 exist at the Georgia State Archive.
Three Major Atlanta Dailies: The Atlanta Constitution, The Atlanta Journal and The Atlanta Georgian (Hearst's Tabloid Yellow Journalism). The most relevant issues center around April 28th to August 27th 1913.
5. Atlanta Constitution Newspaper: The Murder of Mary Phagan, Coroner's Inquest, Grand Jury, Investigation, Trial, Appeals, Prison Shanking and Lynching reported about the Leo Frank Case in the Atlanta Constitution Daily Newspaper from 1913 to 1915. http://archive.org/details/LeoFrankCaseInTheAtlantaConstitutionNewspaper1913To1915
6. Atlanta Georgian newspaper covering the Leo Frank Case from late April though August, 1913. http://archive.org/details/AtlantaGeorgianNewspaperAprilToAugust1913
7. Atlanta Journal Newspaper, April, 28, 1913, through till the end of August, 1913, pertaining to articles about the Leo Frank Case: http://archive.org/details/AtlantaJournalApril281913toAugust311913
Leo Frank confirms he might have been in the bathroom at the time Monteen Stover said his office was empty (12:05 pm to 12:10 pm): See the Atlanta Constitution, Monday, March 9, 1914, Leo Frank Jailhouse Interview
U.S. Senator Tom Watson
8. Tom Watson's Jeffersonian Newspaper (1914, 1915, 1916 and 1917) and Watson's Magazine (1915). Tom Watson's best work on the Leo M. Frank case was published in August and September 1915. Watson's five major magazine works written serially on the Frank-Phagan affair, provide logical arguments confirming the guilt of Leo M. Frank with the superb reasoning of a seasoned criminal attorney. These five 1915 articles published over numerous months are absolutely required reading for anyone interested in the Leo M. Frank Case. Originals of these magazines are extremely difficult to find.
8.1. The Leo Frank Case By Tom Watson (January 1915) Watson's Magazine Volume 20 No. 3. See page 139 for the Leo Frank Case
. Jeffersonian Publishing Company, Thomson, Ga., Digital Source Archive.org
8.2. The Full Review of the Leo Frank Case By Tom Watson (March 1915) Volume 20. No. 5. See page 235 for 'A Full Review of the Leo Frank Case'. Jeffersonian Publishing Company, Thomson, Ga.
, Digital Source www.Archive.org
8.3. The Celebrated Case of The State of Georgia vs. Leo Frank By Tom Watson (August 1915) Volumne 21, No 4. See page 182 for 'The Celebrated Case of the State of Georgia vs. Leo Frank". Jeffersonian Publishing Company, Thomson, Ga.
, Digital Source www.Archive.org
8.4. The Official Record in the Case of Leo Frank, Jew Pervert By Tom Watson (September 1915) Volume 21. No. 5. See page 251 for 'The Official Record in the Case of Leo Frank, Jew Pervert'. Jeffersonian Publishing Company, Thomson, Ga.
, Digital Source www.Archive.org
8.5. The Rich Jews Indict a State! The Whole South Traduced in the Matter of Leo Frank By Tom Watson (October 1915) Volume 21. No. 6. See page 301. Jeffersonian Publishing Company, Thomson, Ga.
, Digital Source: www.Archive.org
Tom Watson's Jeffersonian Weekly Newspaper
9. The archive of Tom E. Watson Digital Papers, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, contains the full collection of Jeffersonian Newspapers: http://www.lib.unc.edu/dc/watson
Modern Leo Frank cult members (known as Frankites) are posing as neutral reviewers and attempting to convince people not to read Tom Watson's analysis about the Frank-Phagan affair. Watson's analysis of the case is the controversial forbidden fruit of truth that have been censored for more than 100 years. For a nearly complete selection of: Tom Watson's Jeffersonian newspaper articles specifically related to the Murder of Mary Phagan and Leo Frank Case
Tom Watson Brown, Grandson of Thomas Edward Watson
10. Notes on the Case of Leo M. Frank
, By Tom W. Brown, Emery University, Atlanta, Georgia, 1982.
Leo Frank Georgia Supreme Court Archive:
11. Leo Frank Trial and Appeals Georgia Supreme Court File
(1,800 pages). http://archive.org/details/leo-frank-georgia-supreme-court-case-records-1913-1914